The Supreme Court, in a in a 5-4 ruling, found that “closely held” businesses do not have to provide contraception to their employees, if the ownership of said company opposes birth control on the grounds that it conflicts with the Religious Beliefs.

In other words, if you want to behave like Sandra Fluke, and if I am a business owner of a “closely held” business, I cannot be forced by the Obama Administration to provide your “protection”, either before or after that “special moment”.

Rush Limbaugh, per usual made an excellent point on his nationally-syndicated radio program, yesterday:

…the thinking everywhere on the left, is either Obama’s gonna pay for it from his stash like they think exists in Detroit, or the insurance company will be forced to pay for it. But they won’t pay for it, they’ll just bill it back to Hobby Lobby. (interruption) No, the principle stands, that’s the point. When all this is said and done, the Supreme Court still ruled that the federal government cannot make a “closely held” corporation violate its own personal religious beliefs. I’m gonna have to double-check this, but I really do think that in that sense we’ve not had a ruling this direct in that regard before, whatever the issue was. I think I saw that somewhere this morning in the mounds of show prep that I was going through.

Look, it means here that Obama cannot unilaterally dictate how religion is to be practiced via laws or regulations or executive orders. It means that the First Amendment is not a casual plaything for cavalier statists whether in the executive branch or whether in Congress. There also was another ruling on the union’s and whether or not parents and nannies taking care of their own loved ones at home can be forced to pay union dues, and that was rejected, too. The headline says: “Sweeping Loss for Unions.” Oh, horrible, the Supreme Court just dealt a devastating blow to public unions. But this one really is kind of narrow. But the principle still stands.

What is really important, yet really small in this case, is that even after the Hobby Lobby decision, women can still go to Target or Walmart and buy a month’s worth of conception for nine dollars. What’s kind of being overlooked here in all this — and we did look at it in great detail on the previous occasion on this program — is that somehow we’ve gotten to the point where women should not have to pay for their own birth control. Somebody else is gonna pay for it, no matter how much they want, no matter how often they want it, no matter for what reason, somebody else is going to pay for it. That’s the root of all this. The employer should pay it, the insurance company will pay it, but in no way in 2014 America are women going to being pay for it, even though you can go to Target or Walmart and get a month’s supply for nine bucks.

So the ruling does not apply to, say, an Exxon or a General Motors. That’s not a “closely held” corporation. But the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby cannot be forced to fund the contraception mandate. Their liberty was defended here, no matter how narrow the left wants to say the ruling was, no matter what the practical application is, when it’s all over the First Amendment was enforced, or maybe reinforced today.

On March 8, 1983, President Ronald Wilson Reagan gave a speech to the National Association of Evangelicals, which came to be know as the “Evil Empire Speech”. Here is an excerpt:

Well, I’m pleased to be here today with you who are keeping America great by keeping her good. Only through your work and prayers and those of millions of others can we hope to survive this perilous century and keep alive this experiment in liberty, this last, best hope of man.

I want you to know that this administration is motivated by a political philosophy that sees the greatness of America in you, her people, and in your families, churches, neighborhoods, communities–the institutions that foster and nourish values like concern for others and respect for the rule of law under God.

Now, I don’t have to tell you that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with, a–a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism, discarding the tried and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based. No matter how well intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while they proclaim that they’re freeing us from superstitions of the past, they’ve taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation. Sometimes their voices are louder than ours, but they are not yet a majority. [Applause]

An example of that vocal superiority is evident in a controversy now going on in Washington. And since I’m involved, I’ve been waiting to hear from the parents of young America. How far are they willing to go in giving to government their prerogatives as parents?

Let me state the case as briefly and simply as I can. An organization of citizens, sincerely motivated, deeply concerned about the increase in illegitimate births and abortions involving girls well below the age of consent, some time ago established a nationwide network of clinics to offer help to these girls and, hopefully, alleviate this situation. Now, again, let me say, I do not fault their intent. However, in their well-intentioned effort, these clinics decided to provide advice and birth control drugs and devices to underage girls without the knowledge of their parents.

For some years now, the federal government has helped with funds to subsidize these clinics. In providing for this, the Congress decreed that every effort would be made to maximize parental participation. Nevertheless, the drugs and devices are prescribed without getting parental consent or giving notification after they’ve done so. Girls termed “sexually active”–and that has replaced the word “promiscuous”–are given this help in order to prevent illegitimate worth/birth (quickly corrects himself) eh or abortion.

Well, we have ordered clinics receiving federal funds to notify the parents such help has been given. [Applause] One of the nation’s leading newspapers has created the term “squeal rule” in editorializing against us for doing this, and we’re being criticized for violating the privacy of young people. A judge has recently granted an injunction against an enforcement of our rule. I’ve watched TV panel shows discuss this issue, seen columnists pontificating on our error, but no one seems to mention morality as playing a part in the subject of sex. [Applause]

Is all of Judeo-Christian tradition wrong? Are we to believe that something so sacred can be looked upon as a purely physical thing with no potential for emotional and psychological harm? And isn’t it the parents’ right to give counsel and advice to keep their children from making mistakes that may affect their entire lives? [Slight crescendo of voice and emphasis–Long Applause]

Many of us in government would like to know what parents think about this intrusion in their family by government. We’re going to fight in the courts. The right of parents and the rights of family take precedence over those of Washington-based bureaucrats and social engineers. [Applause]

But the fight against parental notification is really only one example of many attempts to water down traditional values and even abrogate the original terms of American democracy. Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. [Applause] When our founding fathers passed the First Amendment, they sought to protect churches from government interference. They never intended to construct a wall of hostility between government and the concept of religious belief itself.

Yesterday afternoon, the current POTUS, Barack Hussein Obama, did not address the Supreme Court’s ruling. Instead, he gave a petulant speech blaming the Republicans in Congress for failing to deal with the Mexican Munchkin Migration, a horrible, sovereignty-threatening situation on our Southern Border, which he himself encouraged. The Petulant President threatened to issue Executive Orders to “deal with the problem”, a solution which is actually outside the reach of his Presidential Powers.

Now, I’m not naive. As Rush alluded to, I fully expect Obama to administratively arrange for our tax dollars to pay for birth control pills and abortiafacients for employees of these companies who choose not to provide them, due to their religious principles.

Which brings me to the following observation:

The President of the United States of America in 1983 was against the United States Government promoting immorality.

The President of the United States of America in 2014 is promoting immoral behavior and individual irresponsibility…and is expecting taxpayers to pay for it.